Hello Welcome to OSM & all that, but this is utter rubbish. Please map responsibly.

Entropy - more items = more maintenance. The "inexperienced" often mistake MP's & add tags to their ways, creating errors in rendering.

I'm struggling to see how drawing & tagging one single polygon way is less work than mapping lots of individual ways, splitting an existing polygon into multiple ways, creating two MP relations, adding them to all the ways & then deleting tags from the existing polygon.

Hi
You've added "dontimport:fhrs:" tagshttp://overpass-turbo.eu/s/BUT. What Is its purpose?
To check, are you aware of the discussions on Talk-GB where it was agreed that only fhrs:id & address data was to be added? Transient info, such as rating, rating date would result in unnecessary maintenance.All other tags were either irrelevant or could be determined by cross referencing with the FHRS database?
osm.wiki/UK_2016_Q4_Project:_Food_Hygiene_Ratings

Hi Paul
Thanks.
There a few others to clear: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/BUM
There's also 'checkfirst' which could do with looking at: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/BUO

Are you aware of the discussions on Talk-GB where it was agreed that only fhrs:id & address data was to be added? Transient info, such as rating, rating date would result in unnecessary maintenance. fhrs:authority is irrelevant as OSM is geospatially aware.
osm.wiki/UK_2016_Q4_Project:_Food_Hygiene_Ratings

What is "dontimport:fhrs:addrline1" used for?

Hi
Welcome to OSM.
Please be aware there should only be one 'railway=station' per railway station. Any buildings should be tagged 'building=train_station'
Please make sure you don't accidentally delete ways (the steps down to the platforms in this case)
Cheers
DaveF

Hi Brian.
Is there a valid reason you split lots of riverbanks into relation members? It makes it so much more difficult to edit.
Can you not just draw a simple polygon for your landuse=farmland additions?
Please note that tag shouldn't be used for whole swathes of land, but individual fields (which rarely adjoin directly with the river)

Hi
Welcome to OSM

You appear to have added access=no to all. This means no one can can access it. It is unnecessary as foot=designated defines who can use the path.

Unpaved is a 'last resort/cover all' tag. It's much better to be more specific using grass, dirt or asphalt etc when ever possible.

If it's designated/signed as a public footpath, foot should be tagged as 'designated' instead of 'yes'.

If contiguous ways have the same tags they should be joined together. This can be done in iD by selecting the first way, then <shift> select the other way.

If you have time, mapping barriers such as hedges & fences makes the route of the path much clearer.

HTH
DaveF

This is a bus only route. Some is highway=bus_guideway

I don't think unclassified is the correct tag to use.

Hi

From aerial imagery, that looks like a private driveway to me. Do you have local knowledge?

@tms13. If you send an email to talk-GB@openstreetmap.org explaining your PoV/concerns you will receive replies which you should be able to see.

My things to do list:
Amend 'U' class roads
Check for any 'D/E' class roads
Double check for any missed refs
Check for other refs & discuss on Talk-GB of their validity
Update official_ref wiki & links
Search for 'this road is signed' tags & amalgamate
Search for 'source' tags & amalgamate

If you can think of anything else, please let me know.

The expression is 'don't tag *incorrectly* to suit the renderer'. All tags are to the benefit of them otherwise it would be just black lines & dots.

Putting the refs for certain classes of roads gives the option to render. As so few C, U refs etc are displayed on signs & only use internally of an authority it's felt it would be clearer to hide them on the main map. As a contributor of long standing you will be aware of the many rendering changes which have occurred over the years.

I believe i was the one who changed rel 28934 to natural=water back in ver 39/40. There was a Tagging discussion a few years ago. It ties in better with other water bodies making it easier to collate water related entities. The wiki indicates it as an alternative: waterway=riverbank#How_to_map.

The problem is that daModdin has deleted many 'outers' from this relation & then created a new one (8405045) to replace them but didn't transfer any of the 'inners' from 28934. relation/28934

I have just deleted 8405045 as it consisted of just two outers. I'll reinsert the deleted outers into 28934 & hopefully everything will render appropriately.

Hi
Please don't add tags to the ways of Multipolygon relations. The required tags are within the relation please read up on them in the wiki
Please use more specific changeset comments than 'Added details'

Hi
Tms13 has been provided with that link a couple of times by other users in previous changeset comments..

Explanation is on talk-gb. Join the discussion.

It was discussed, and agreed to make the amendments, as noted in my post on Talk-gb. Who have I ignored?

Please join the conversation you previously been informed about. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2018-August/021690.html

Hi
Please join the discussion to put your point on 'C' ref roads:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2018-August/021690.html